Do the people advocating for these laws never stop to consider that one day their opponents might get into government, and then have controls over these new powers? There is a chance that in 4 years time Farage will be PM, does Dame Chi Onwurah really want him to be able to decide what is illegal misinformation?

If it's really harmful then it would already be illegal wouldn't it ?

Example of "legal but harmful": non-illegal pornography.

[1]Pencil

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=votcOf5cYCM

@Mentat74

"If it's really harmful then it would already be illegal wouldn't it ?"

Its all about control. Its funny how lying has been turned into misinformation, disinformation, malinformation. Then of course try to block things on these new terms that people dont yet realise is just the usual lying. And anyone with a functioning braincell should be aware that the government dictating truth is a terrible idea which leads to more in quantity and dangerous lies.

> Its funny how lying has been turned into misinformation, disinformation, malinformation

"Lying" is derogatory. You can't use that term nowadays, you'll get sued.

"Misinformation" on the other hand is pleasantly neutral, it only states "there might be some minor issues with that information". And especially it doesn't accuse anybody in particular.

>” If it's really harmful then it would already be illegal wouldn't it ?”

No.

We already have legal harmful products. Some of our food is best not consumed to excess eg. Carrots.

Also with pharmaceuticals, part of the authorisation involves a toxicity test.

The problem is we don’t have an objective toxicity test for words, phrases/soundbites and images.

I love the way that "protecting free expression" got baked into the statement while what they're really asking for is the ability to arbitrarily determine what constitutes "harmful information" and then delete it.

It's still a cry for more censorship, whatever way you want to spin it.

There's a glimmer of hope here, what they should be doing is dropping all notions of misinformation and any government body deciding what's factual or not, and instead focusing on "protecting free expression" by preventing social media companies arbitrarily amplifying content which might - or might not - be misinformation. Give us back our 'one post one vote' internet of old instead of promoting the enraging bullshit to the top of the page.

Good idea. But too good I'm afraid... They'll never go for it.

Well, it wouldn't be needed off the country didn't have so many morons who believe the bull of people like Farage.

It's like they saw everyone laughing at MAGA, and felt left out.

Yes, we should all be as enlightened as all your perfect opinions.

If you support MAGA or Reform, your badly worded insult counts for nothing.

Edit: Oh, I see from your posting history that you're a holocaust denier.

Thanks for basically reinforcing my point.

Online Safety Act, and a "lack of clarity"? Whoah!!

Try running a UK Forum website, and you'll soon find that "low risk" is not defined, "child visitors" is not defined, in fact "visitors" isn't really defined, "significant number of UK users" isn't defined, and more. Everything is left to the individual who has agreed to put their name down (but not necessarily published) as the person responsible for the OSA risk assessments.

No advice or hard guidance is available from Ofcom, who shelter behind the argument that they're responsible for enforcement, and so can't provide case-specific advice of any kind.

Probably it's because the actual law is left vague, delegating the bulk of decision-making to Ofcom, so that Ofcom can act in a way that they think protects people most effectively. They can't define things that matter because they don't have the technical expertise, and because they they don't want to create legal loopholes.

Try running a UK Forum website, and you'll soon find that "low risk" is not defined,

Yeah, a forum I'm involved with has to assume that I'm 15 years old based on me signing up 15 years ago, until a convenient meetmoot where I can confirm my physical identity with the Admin Team.

Too few people are aware of the important moment, between cutting the umbilical cord and the first feeding, when a newborn infant pauses to sign up for any forums they think they might be interested in during their lifetime.

It also ensures that Ofcom can justify whatever their decisions are, as they are basically in charge of the interpretation of the law on a case-by-case basis.

For example, you may not like GBNews very much, but they do seem to have a different standard to adhere to than other news outlets.

As if this policy was ordered by the corporations who benefit from inability of anyone else to run a forum.

Why start a new forum if you can create a Facebook group.

OSA is a testament to how corrupt current and previous governments are and how institutions that supposed to prevent that just take tax payer money and do nothing.

> In the summer of 2024, the UK witnessed riots and unrest, which MPs said were partly driven by online misinformation and hateful content following fatal stabbings at a children's dance class in Southport.

I'm sure if the public had been told "Relax, it's just a Rwandan with three referrals to the anti-extremism agency Prevent between December 2019 and April 2021 who had the police called to the Rudakubana home various times, including when he kicked his father in the face. He might have said "It's a good thing those children are dead. I'm so glad, so happy." once arrested and was also charged with possession of a military study of an Al-Qaeda training manual and possession of ricin but don't rush to judgement"

they would just have stayed home.

So, you admit they were riots stoked by lies, but it doesn't matter, because the brainless racist thugs would have attacked immigrants even if they found out it wasn't an immigrant they could blame?

That's a fail on multiple levels.

It's also strange how you think that justifies a racist mob riot. Do you expect riots against white men every time a white man commits an evil crime?

I'm struggling to remember any Harold Shipman riots..

Well, he did have a great bedside manner.

Yea, I hear almost none of his patients left bad reviews..

Meanwhile the Southport riots died down as soon as it transpired the perp was a British Sideshow Bob look-a-like kid. So there's more than one way to lull your prey into calm.

By the way: Two-tier rioting, it makes me sick!!!! (I have no idea what this means but it seems an in vogue political accusation these days)

I found this investigation into the 2023 Merseyside riot informative.

[1]Small Town, Big Riot

Basically, the only way to get social media to become more truthful is to strip away the anonymity…

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m0021k3x/small-town-big-riot

"The Online Safety Act fails to tackle online misinformation, leaving the UK in need of further regulation to curb the viral spread of false content"

Not to worry, Starmer already has that in hand. Anyone remember 2012 and the Doncaster Airport tweet"? Guess who was DPP?

'Twitter joke' case only went ahead at insistence of DPP

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2012/jul/29/paul-chambers-twitter-joke-airport

Well if any speech is deemed out of hand, the current government can just proscribe whoever is doing the yelling. See? Simple fix.

Say a political party wrote a manifesto claiming to be safe and competent politicians, then after being in power for less than a year managed to run the economy into deficit and break records on the rapid descent into unpopularity of its self and its Great Leader.

By the magic of hindsight that would make that political manifesto misinformation, would it not?

Asking for a chain-smoking bloke called Nigel...

@Dr Dan Holdsworth

"By the magic of hindsight that would make that political manifesto misinformation, would it not?

Asking for a chain-smoking bloke called Nigel..."

Its a good job you singled out which one you would mean when it applies pretty much across the board at politicians who even got elected!

There has to be some sort of exclusion for wannabe politicians

I suspect the side of a bus doesn’t count as “online” (although in the US, the distribution of the images would probably count as wire fraud).

Westminister politicians can already pretty much say what they want on the floor of the Commons without come back…

run the economy into deficit

It's been in deficit since 2001, genius.

break records on the rapid descent into unpopularity

I can see you're new to politics. Good luck.

Politicians complaining about "legal but harmful" are nothing short of appalling. They're by a very big margin the greatest producers of it. What about "We send the EU £350 million a week, let's fund our NHS instead"? That was typical of political speech - made purely for their own benefit with total disregard for the consequances.

It's the echo chamber recommendations that are the main problem.

Just mandate that all social media companies must use the recommendation algorithm: "select random item from those you've not yet seen".

Some people will learn a lot, others not so much. User retention might drop a bit...

i bit like ad profiling based on what you've been searching for or pages you've visited.

i far prefer to see random ads rather than stuff related to something i have a good idea on what i want or I've already purchased.

a new washing machine the other year, i researched what features i wanted (basically a newer version of the Samsung i'd had for 10 years) then went looking for the cheapest place to buy it, then looking for discount codes etc etc etc. My chosen machine had a 5 year manufacturers parts & labour warranty so i wasn't interested in any extras. for over a month after installation i was being bothered by ads for washing machines, i then worked out how to apply adsense to icloud private relay and now i don't see ads!!!

The obvious point here is who decides what is true and what is misinformation?

That case quoted: We know now that it was false. But at the time it could just as easily been true. There had been an attack and children were injured and killed: The name of the person who committed the crime, and their history, were what was dodgy.

But that's one case. What about other cases? I've heard (thanks to social media posts) a certain Orange Haired Egotist had people flown out into the middle of the Atlantic and kicked out of the plane - in chains! And there's proof! Plane took off, returned empty. The supposed destination claims they never saw the passengers! And then bodies of manacled people wash up in Spain! Oh the horror! Except... the plane in question detoured, landed, and deposited the passengers at another location: That's documented. And the bodies that washed up? Spanish believe they're the victims of people smugglers who have a nasty habit of killing people who cross them. So what's the truth? Orange Man really evil or misinformation due to people's misinterpreting facts and patching together a Frankenstein monster's ugly son of a story?

Or how about the current issue in Israel and Gaza ? Who is telling the truth over the killings over there: Is it the Hamas run health ministry, or the Israeli authorities? Or perhaps both are lying about what's happening?

Or we take things for what they are: Reports that might contain incorrect information (especially if they're AI generated). Having this potential misinformation should help us be skeptical of what we're told, and if we're really that interested: We can go and do some research for ourselves to find out the truth. Or as close to the truth as the available data allows us to get. Or, and this is what I believe most should do: Wait. Wait until we've more reliable sources of information. Wait until we've had time to think things through and realise there's discrepancies, even take that important second look and have asked ourselves: What is missing? What could be added that would flip this entire story? And how likely is it that the story would flip? Like those police officers tacking two guys at the airport: Were the police being heavy handed or is there something more to the story than we'd seen? (That one's in court at the moment so... am waiting to see what extra information is released at the end).